the politics of un/naming in the evaluation process david pontille & didier torny Centre de Sociologie de l’Innovation “Current challenges in the evaluation of social sciences and humanities” April 30th, 2019 • Université Saint-Louis, Bruxelles • COST ENRESSH names in science experimentation publication big science and authorship (Zuckerman 1968) (Cronin, Shaw, LaBarre 2004) names and citation counts “straight counts” “complete counts” “adjusted counts” … names as “units“ authorship in SSH “collective productions, even of high quality, do not allow the value of a candidate to be assessed when the committee is not in a position to clearly identify the actual author.” (http://www.cpcnu.fr/web/cnu-section-02/recommandation-mcf) collective names scientists and institutions when authorship is the text (Nature 2002) counting Vs. opening up names multiple authorship 1014 names name ordering Name, Name, Name, Name, Name, Name Name, Name,Name, Name,Name, Name,Name Name, Name, Name, Name, Name, Name categories of authorship https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Pressure-to-the-author-for- undeserved-allocation-of-authorship_fig1_274383408 guest authorship Name, Name,Name,Name, Name, Name disagree/credit unaware gift authorship Name, Name,Name,Name, Name, Name fictitious ghost authorship (Nature 2004) imagining an alternative (1996-2001) intensiveresponsibility discussions severaltransparency workshops “authorshipaccountability task force” (The Lancet 1998) experimenting contributorship pioneers journals The Lancet 1997 British Medical Journal 1997 experiments journals Journal American Medical Association 1997>2001 American Journal of Public Health 1997>1998 Radiology 1998 Canadian Medical Association Journal 1998>2000 Annals of Internal Medicine 1999>2000 … Nature 1997>1999 Science 1997>2000 making contributions visible materializing contributions Annals of Internal Medicine authors’ form Manuscript Title By signing below, all authors acknowledge that they have read 1) the statement on authorship, dual commitment, and contribution to authorship and 2) the Contribution Codes statement on copyright transfer or federal employment. They also agree to assign aConceptionanddesign the responsibility for changes to galley proofs to one designated author. The name bAnalysisandinterpretationofthedata of this author, as well as the name of the corresponding author and the author to cDraftingofthearticle receive reprint requests, should be indicated in the Author Information section, dCriticalrevisionofthearticleforimportant below. Authors of editorials, letters, On Being a Doctor/Patient pieces, and Book intellectual content Notes need not designate author contributions. The corresponding author must eFinalapprovalofthearticle also sign the acknowledgment statement at the bottom of this page. Authors who fProvisionofstudymaterialsorpatients do not already receive Annals will receive a complimentary copy of the issue in gStatisticalexpertise which their article appears (indicate by checking the box under Author Informa- hObtainingoffunding tion). This document may be photocopied for distribution to coauthors for their iAdministrative,technical,orlogisticsupport signature. Every author must complete a form. Signatures sent via facsimile can- jCollectionandassemblyofdata not be accepted. Please mail all copies to Harold Sox, MD, Editor, Annals of Internal Medicine,190N.IndependenceMallWest,Philadelphia,PA19106- 1572, USA. codified contributions Authorship, Dual Commitment, and Contributions to Authorship Copyright Transfer ● Ihavecontributeddirectlytotheintellectualcontentofthispaperandhave Annals of Internal Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted by the Ameri- agreed to have my name listed as an author on the final, revised version. can College of Physicians (ACP). In the event that the ACP publishes my work ● For papers with more than one author: I agree to allow the corresponding and in consideration of the editing and publication of my work and the profes- author to make decisions regarding prepublication release of information in the sional benefits relating hereto, I transfer to the ACP all right, title, and interest to paper to the media, federal agencies, or both. all parts of the written work named above. The ACP shall own the work, includ- ● Financial interests, direct or indirect, that exist or may be perceived to exist for ing 1) copyright; 2) the right to grant permission to republish the article in whole individual authors in connection with the content of this paper have been dis- or in part, with or without fee; 3) the right to produce preprints or reprints and closed to Annals in the cover letter. Sources of outside support of the project are translate into languages other than English for sale or free distribution; 4) the named in the cover letter, and the role of funding organizations, if any, in the right to republish the work in a collection of articles in any other mechanical or electronic format. In addition, I affirm that the work has not been previously conduct of the study is described in the Methods section of the manuscript. published, is not subject to copyright or other rights except my own to be trans- In the spaces marked “Contribution Codes,” authors should mark those code ferred to the ACP, and has not otherwise been submitted for publication, except letters from the box that designate their own substantive contribution(s) to the under circumstances communicated to the ACP in writing at the time the work paper. Any contribution not described in the box should be indicated in the was first submitted. space for “Other contributions.” handwriting signature U.S. Federal Employees: I was a U.S. federal employee when this work was done and the manuscript was prepared for publication. This work is not protectedbythe Copyright Act and ownership cannot be transferred. Initials: Author Information Signature Name Date signed Institution Street address City State ZIP code Phone number Fax number Contribution codes (from box) 1) 2) 3) Other contributions Please check all of the following boxes that apply to you: ᮀ Author responsible for galley proofs ᮀ Author to receive reprint requests ᮀ Corresponding author ᮀ ACP member/Annals subscriber Acknowledgment Iattestthatallindividualswhocontributedtothemanuscripthavebeenappropriatelyacknowledged,andalsothatallcontributorswhoarenotauthorsarenamedinthe Acknowledgment section and have agreed in writing to be named. Yes No Corresponding Author Signature (needed only on corresponding author’s form) Date Signed variations journals contributions list of contributions (N) Annals of Internal Medicine 10 list British Medical Journal undefined free space JAMA 11 items hierarchy Nature undefined list Science 5 items weight Physical Therapy 11 list Radiology 14 list The Lancet undefined free space ongoing experiments… a standardized taxonomy “What we need is a controlled vocabulary of contributor roles and mechanisms for capturing contribution tags within the scholarly metadata ecosystem.” (Brand et al. 2015: 154) contribution badges (1) (Source: https://github.com/akenall/Open-Contributorship-Badges/blob/master/Badge%20Files.md) contribution badges (2) (Source: http://gigascience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2047-217X-2-10/open-badges) ongoing debates… two versions authors contributors names’ presence: names’ presence:production process individual productivity including reviewers? (Scott & Smith 1996) (Erren & Erren 2013) Publons as reviewer recognition who are the judges? referee 1 editor-in- editorial chief committee referee 2 referee 1 learned referee 2 referee 3 societies embracing or rejecting reviewers Kennefick D., 2005, “Einstein Versus The Physical Review”, Physics Today, vol. 58(9): 43-48 anonymized authors (1) American Sociological Review, 1955, vol. 20(3): 341. Lowry R.P., 1967. “Communications to the editors” The American Sociologist, 2(4): 220. anonymized authors (2) Ward, W.D., Goudsmit, S.A., 1967. “Reviewer and author anonymity.” Physics Today, vol. 20 (1): 12. anonymous reviewers: abusers Jones R., 1974, New Scientist, vol. 61(890): 758-759. anonymous reviewers: guardians constructive ethical protection strong readability advisor criticisms objectivity Vs. publicity Reviewers anonymized identified Authors anonymized double blind blind review identified single blind open peer review F1000 Research article-level metrics readers as judging instances citer editor-in- editorial commentator chief committee sharer referee 1 referee 2 an ecology of names the presence of names productivity production Name, Name, Name, Name, Name, Name, Name Science Research intellectual activity professional activity originality conditions of work transparency by numbers 2016 2004 our work Pontille D., Torny D., 2014, The Blind Shall See! The Question of Anonymity in Journal Peer Review, Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology, n°4, https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00981277v1 Pontille D., Torny D., 2015, From Manuscript Evaluation to Article Valuation: The Changing Technologies of Journal Peer Review, Human Studies, vol. 38(1), p. 57-79. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01143310v1 Pontille D., Torny D., 2017, Beyond Fact Checking: Reconsidering the Status of Truth of Published Articles, EASST Review, vol. 36(1), p. 14-16. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01576348v1 Torny D., 2018, Pubpeer: vigilante science, journal club or alarm raiser? The controversies over anonymity in post-publication peer review, PEERE International Conference on Peer Review, March, Rome, Italy. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01700198v1.